michigan avenue bioretention monitoring the results 3 years later mwea 86 th annual conference, june...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Michigan Avenue BioretentionMonitoring the Results 3 Years Later
MWEA 86th Annual Conference, June 28, 2011Dan Christian, P.E., D.WRE Tetra Tech
Valerie Novaes, Tetra Tech
Native Plant Nursery
Virg Bernero, MayorVirg Bernero, Mayor
2
Agenda
• Project Overview• Soils: infiltration, porosity, field capacity• Plants: overall health and planting plans• Monitoring• Modeling• Challenges and Lessons Learned• Future Applications
3
Bioretention Area
Penn
sylv
ania
Ave
nue
Larc
h St
reet
Michigan Avenue
Grand River
Sparrow Hospital
Oldsmobile Park
State Capitol
City Hall
4
Design• Ultra-Urban• 5-ft wide planter box
style bioretention– 30 bioretention gardens– 7,631 square feet– 4.1 acre tributary area
• 4 blocks, both sides• ADA compliant• Adaptable to community
needs
7
Construction CostsRetaining Wall $22 / sfPlants and Watering $4.25 / sfEngineered Soil $27 / cyPeastone (washed) $40 / cyTop Mulch $42 / cySediment Forebay $1700 eachMetal Plates $1.40 / lb
• Bid: $1,000,000*
• $122/SF (Ultra-urban)
• $30/SF (Without urban constraints)
* As this was part of a larger project, the total bid cost is an estimated portion of the whole.
8
Soil Porosity and Field Capacity
• Question– What is the volume available in the soil to temporarily
store stormwater?– Is there a correlation between the unfilled pore space
and the plant health?• Methods
– Soil analysis for bulk density, porosity and field capacity– Correlate analysis results with overall plant health
assessment
9
Soils
• 30% Sand (MDOT 2NS)• 30% Topsoil
– 10% sand– 40% silt– 40% clay– 10% organics
• 10% Coconut coir fiber• 30% Municipal compost (aged 12 months)
Total clay content 12%
10
Soil AnalysisBioretention Garden
Location within the
garden
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Porosity (%) Field Capacity (%)
Temporary Storage
(Porosity – FC) (%)
700 blocksouth side (#33)
East 1.06 52.4% 31.3% 21.1%
Center 1.18 48.6% 29.7% 18.9%
West 1.20 43.2% 27.5% 15.7%
800 block south side (#43)
East 1.17 49.2% 25.8% 24.5%
Center 1.25 46.5% 25.8% 20.7%
West 1.29 45.7% 25.8% 19.9%
700 block north side (#14)
East 1.08 57.8% 27.9% 29.8%
Center 0.89 62.5% 40.5% 22.1%
West 1.05 49.2% 31.6% 17.6%
Average 1.13 50.6% 29.5% 21.0%
* Non-compacted soil
11
Bulk Density
Measured
Limiting
Urban, James. Up by Roots: Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built Environment. 2008
12
Water Holding Capacity
21%
FISRWG. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. 2001.
50.6% porosity measured
29.5% field capacity measured
13
Infiltration• Questions
– What is the infiltration capacity of the engineered soils?
– Does the infiltration rate vary based on location within the bioretention garden?
– Comparison of infiltration equipment• Methods and Equipment
– 24-inch double-ring; LID Manual for Michigan Appendix E
– 4-inch Turf-Tec (www.turf-tec.com); manufacturer instructions
– Mini-disk Infiltrometer (www.decagon.com); manufacturer instructions
14
Infiltration
Garden # Location within
Garden
Equip-ment
Date Mulch and top 2-inch
soil
Infil-tration (in/hr)
#33; south side west of Hill St (Young Bros & Daley)
East24-inch
8/13/2010 Removed 8.7
6/1/2011In Place 0.2Removed 0.1
Turf-Tec 6/1/2011In Place 2.2Removed 2.2
Middle
24-inch9/28/2010 Removed 2.9
6/2/2011In Place 1.9Removed 1.2
Turf-Tec9/28/2010 Removed 21.5
6/2/2011In Place 19.9Removed 0.0
Middle-West
24-inch 6/3/2011In Place 14.4Removed 5.3
Turf-Tec 6/3/2011In Place 12.8Removed 4.9
West
24-inch8/13/2010 Removed 7.2
6/3/2011In Place 10.9Removed 1.8
Turf-Tec8/13/2010 Removed 3.6
6/3/2011In Place 6.9Removed 0.0
#14 north side west of Hosmer St (MSHDA) Middle
24-inch 9/27/2010 Removed 4.0Turf-Tec 9/27/2010 Removed 0.6
15
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0 East 24-in 8/13/10 mulch removed
East 24-in 6/1/11 mulch in-place
East 24-in 6/1/11 mulch removed
East Turf-Tec 6/1/11 mulch in-place
East Turf-Tec 6/1/11 mulch removed
Middle 24-in 9/28/10 mulch removed
Middle 24-in 6/2/11 mulch in-place
Middle 24-in 6/2/11 mulch removed
Middle Turf-Tec 9/28/10 mulch removed
Middle Turf-Tec 6/2/11 mulch in-place
Middle Turf-Tec 6/2/11 mulch removed
Middle-West 24-in 6/2/11 mulch in-place
Middle-West 24-in 6/3/11 mulch removed
Middle-West Turf-Tec 6/3/11 mulch in-place
Middle-West Turf-Tec 6/3/11 mulch removed
West 24-in 8/13/10 mulch removed
West 24-in 6/3/11 mulch in-place
West 24-in 6/3/11 mulch removed
West Turf-Tec 8/13/10 mulch removed
West Turf-Tec 6/3/11 mulch in-place
West Turf-Tec 6/3/11 mulch removedTime (min)
Infil
trat
ion
(in/h
r) Legend Notes:- Location designated by color- Unit designed by line: 24-inch double-ring solid line Turf-Tec dashed line- Dates designated by marker shape- Mulch designated by marker: removed marker filled in-place marker empty
16
Infiltration• Highly Variable• Despite low measured values, gardens
continue to drain well• Mini-disk infiltrometer couldn’t seal
around base• Impractical to test with mulch in place• Suggest
– Larger test area **– Use full bioretention area when possible
** Bouwer, H. Chp 32 Intake Rate: Cylinder Infiltrometer of the Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods Second Edition, 1986
17
Vertical Drain Installation• July 2009• Observations
– Mulch extremely thick (up to 8-inches)– Clogged geotextile around underdrain
• Vertical drains installed in poorly draining garden– Perforated 4-inch PVC– Surrounded by stone
• Re-inspected in September; working well
18
Plant and Garden Health Questions
• What is the overall health of the planted community? • Are there any trends in plant species survival/health? • What is recommended for replanting specific gardens? • Is there any correlation between the following and the health
of the plants: condition of the soil, the thickness of the mulch, the presence of weeds, and the presence of trash/debris?
19
Plant and Garden Health Assessment
• Photographs• Quantification of each grass, forb, and
tree species present • Qualitative assessment of each plant
species• Pervasiveness of weeds• Condition of the soil• Degree of erosion• Degree of soil compaction• Thickness of mulch• Pervasiveness of trash/litter• Overall aesthetics
20
Plant and Garden Health Results• No immediate action needed on any gardens• Inlets: All good condition; except 1 cracked plate• Weeds: 70% gardens few weeds; 17% excessive• Soils: 20% excessively wet, 80% good• Erosion: no concerns• Compaction: no concerns• Mulch: 73% too much mulch (as thick as 9”)• Fencing: 2 gardens with missing caps, bent rails• Curbing: no problems• Sumps: no problems• Trash/liter: 20% gardens no trash, 17% excessive• Overall aesthetics: 64% good, 21% fair,15% poor
September 2009
21
Plant and Garden Health Results
• Overall plant health: 10% fair condition, 90% good
• All species originally used have survived to some degree or thrived in some gardens
• Some of the most salt tolerant species did not fair well
• Perennial replacement– 2009 estimated 530 (16%)– 2011 actual 853 (26%)
Good Performers• Joe-Pye Weed (Eupatorium
maculatum)• Boneset (Eupatorium
perfoliatum)• Rose Mallow (Hibiscus
moscheutos)• Southern Blue Flag (Iris
virginica)• Switch Grass (Panicum
virgatum)• Ironweed (Vernonia missurica)
22
Plant Replacement
50% of replacement plants• Species doing very well
– Joe-Pye Weed– Boneset– Rose Mallow– Southern Blue Flag– Switch Grass– Ironweed
50% of replacement plants• Original list
– Nodding Wild Onion– Swamp Milkweed– Tall Tickseed– Alum Root– Giant St. Johns Wort– Rough Blazing Star– Marsh Blazing Star– Beardtongue– Yellow Coneflower– Three Lobed Coneflower– Stiff Goldenrod
• Plus trial plants– Purple Coneflower– Queen of the Prairie– Obedient Plant
Replacement Planting June 2011
Rose Mallow
23
Problem Gardens• Several gardens not draining sufficiently to support the originally
selected species• Evidenced by
– absence of the planted species– growth of cattails
• Cattails– Thriving, unique and attractive– Improving overall drainage– Improving dewatering of gardens
• Plan– Leave cattails– Supplement with suitable new species– Tall Sunflower (Helianthus giganteus)– Three-Square (Schoenoplectus pungens (Scirpus americanus))– Softstem Bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (Scirpus validus))
24
Hydrograph Modification
– Monitoring• Rainfall• Surrogate site• Bioretention upstream and
downstream• Rainfall simulation tests
– Modeling• EPA SWMM V5.0.021• Pre- conditions based on surrogate site• Post- based on monitored bioretention• Model expanded to 4 block system• Model range of storm events
• Question– How have the bioretention systems modified the surface runoff
hydrograph (volume, Tp, Qp, shape)?
• Methods
25
Rainfall Simulation Test• Monitoring period – minimal
events• Simulated Rainfall
– 1.3 inches over 4 hours– 1st quartile Huff distribution
• Fire hydrant / garden hose valves• Excellent results
– Fast– Accurate– Fewer unknowns
26
H/H Model• Method
– SWMM 5.0.021• Input measured soil characteristics• Tried different modeling techniques to simulate
the bioretention– Groundwater routine– Traditional storage– New LID options ***
• Calibration– Flow monitoring data– Pre- and Post- bioretention
• Solved for a range of storm events
Example calibration plot
Hydrology Change SummaryRainfall Pre- Condition
(no bioretention)Post- Condition
(with bioretention)Change from
Pre- to Post- Conditions
Recur Interval
Duration(hr)
Total(in)
SRO(in)
Qp(cfs)
Tp(hr)
SRO(in) Qp (cfs) Tp
(hr) SRO (%) Qp (%) Tp(%)
2-month 1 0.52 0.51 0.13 0.17 0.37 0.02 1.08 -27% -87% 535%
6-month 1 0.77 0.76 0.21 0.17 0.61 0.03 1.33 -20% -84% 682%
1-year 1 0.95 0.94 0.27 0.17 0.79 0.04 1.41 -16% -87% 729%
2-year 1 1.14 1.14 0.37 0.17 0.98 0.04 1.41 -14% -89% 729%
10-year 1 1.61 1.61 0.55 0.17 1.44 0.20 0.33 -11% -64% 94%
25-year 1 1.92 1.92 0.66 0.17 1.75 0.29 0.25 -9% -56% 47%
100-year 1 2.44 2.43 0.87 0.17 2.28 0.58 0.20 -6% -33% 18%
2-month 24 1.12 0.92 0.05 12 0.75 0.01 20 -18% -82% 67%
6-month 24 1.64 1.44 0.07 12 1.25 0.01 19 -13% -81% 58%
1-year 24 2.03 1.83 0.10 12 1.62 0.04 13 -11% -56% 8%
2-year 24 2.42 2.22 0.11 12 2.02 0.07 13 -9% -38% 8%
10-year 24 3.43 3.25 0.16 12 3.01 0.10 13 -7% -40% 8%
25-year 24 4.09 3.89 0.19 12 3.66 0.12 13 -6% -38% 8%
100-year 24 5.20 5.00 0.23 12 4.75 0.15 13 -5% -34% 8%
90% 24 0.90 0.70 0.04 12 0.54 0.02 16 -23% -50% 33%
SRO = Surface RunoffQp = Peak FlowTp = Time to Peak
29
Hydrograph Modification Results
• Change in runoff as a function of total rainfall
• Decrease in surface runoff• Decrease in observed
peak discharge• Increase in time of
concentration
30
Challenges and Lessons Learned• Trash/debris
– Collection– Cigarette butts– Dog poop– Wind blown trash
• Education– Local businesses– Maintenance
• Design-Construction– Plant now, don’t wait– Geotextile– Sidewalk slopes compared to
flat bottom bioretention– Cars hitting the fence
• Monitoring– Low flows– Simulated rainfall event
31
Green Plans in Lansing• Boulevard bioswales on Linden Grove Ave
(constructed)• Boulevard infiltration on Barnes Ave
(constructed)• Bioretention swale on Riley St (designed)• Bioretention cells on Bank St (designed)• Bioretention curb extensions on Barnes
Ave and Ray St (designed)• Bioretention curb extensions on
Washington Square (constructed)• Permeable pavement parking lane on
Barnes Ave (constructed)• Permeable pavement parking stall on
South St (designed)